Every nightclub must be equipped with bartenders trained and have written alcohol guidelines. They should also have an experienced manager to oversee each shift. The security measures may appear reassuring in an employee handbook.
Imagine the scene of a Saturday night full of bartenders serving the same number of people, while the floor manager is dealing with the crowd and customers who are ordering drinks from different locations. Who is responsible for determining if someone shouldn’t be receiving alcohol in the future?
This aspect is more crucial in the dram shop litigation process more than just determining the quantity of drinks being sold.
The first step in investigating overservice is to find out what the staff might see
A Dram Shop expert witness examines whether the alcohol-related decisions made by employees were in line with recognized industry practices and the actual circumstances employees faced.
The fact that a customer may be drunk does not by itself show that a bartender spotted visible warning signs throughout service. The investigation should consider the customer’s behavior and the timing of service, the observations of staff as well as evidence.
Surveillance footage may reveal difficulty walking, strange movements, or interactions with employees. The testimony of witnesses can provide context to the incident regardless of whether their own memories are different. The most important distinction is the information that investigators have after an incident and what personnel could reasonably be aware of in the moment.
One Tab Doesn’t mean one drinker
The point-of-sale record is useful however, understanding them requires experience in hospitality. A customer can purchase several rounds of drinks for their friends. Bottle-service transactions can be involving multiple individuals. Separate bartenders might take orders and not know what an employee has previously done.
An Alcohol expert witness can review transaction times, beverage quantities in surveillance footage, as well staffing records to create the complete timeline of services.
This study could identify instances where employees were able to spot intoxication or intervene. It could also help identify instances where the evidence isn’t sufficient to determine who had consumed specific drinks.
The floor is where the training takes place.
Certifications for employees are essential but they’re not a guarantee to establish how a venue performed during a particular shift.
Investigations may examine whether or not the employees have been trained, if they are aware of the procedures for intervention and if management has enhanced policies.
Preston Rideout has more than 30 years of hospitality operations experience in this field, which includes bartending, nightclub management and beverage-program consulting.
Professionally, his credentials show that he holds 112 seller server certificates that cover 48 states, plus the District of Columbia.
This combination allows him both to examine the training employees received as well as operational decisions they had to take. Bartenders, for example could be able to recognize a behavior that is concerning but may not be provided with clear guidelines on how to report the incident or reach management. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the supervisor’s capability to supervise.
Insurance investigations may pose similar Questions
A Liquor liability expert witness frequently addresses the same operational issues for insurers, coverage counsel, and defense attorneys. Although the terminology used may be different, the investigation is still centered on alcohol services, employee conduct monitoring, management oversight, and training.
An exhaustive review can include incident reports, written policy documents, video recordings employees’ schedules, certificates, records, and deposition witness testimony. It is not the responsibility of an expert to automatically appoint the entity that they are retained by. The expert’s responsibility is to communicate the results, identify industry practices and identify the significant limitations.
Experience is a key factor in determining the reasons behind the records
Rideout has worked with plaintiffs and defendants across 11 states, to give testimony on hospitality, hospitality and alcohol-related issues.
His analysis examines restaurants, bars, and nightclubs as well as casinos, hotels, resorts and other hospitality settings which serve alcohol on a regular basis. Each setting has its own management and staffing issues.
A bartender in a smaller dining room at an eatery may have different opportunities to observe the customers than an employee of a nightclub working at a bustling service station. Understanding these differences allows you to put the evidence in the proper operational context.
Trustworthy opinions can’t fill in holes with assumptions
Dram shop laws vary by locality. Expert evidence from experts in operational matters cannot be interpreted as legal advice. The most thorough analysis should explain what the employees did, which recognized service practices were required, and what conclusions can be based on the evidence.
Sometimes records show a deviation from established procedures. In other instances, they prove that employees followed the appropriate procedures or left important questions unanswered.
This distinction is important for lawyers who have to evaluate allegations involving alcohol. A useful expert opinion does more than just describe the event. The court can better understand how decisions were made within the establishment, even though nobody could tell what the outcome would be.